Partly allowed

Baburaj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2015Bail Appl./7213/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order for two bail applications under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court dismissed bail for the first and third accused who attacked with weapons. Bail was granted to the second, fourth, and sixth accused with conditions. No order was passed regarding the fifth petitioner as his identity as an accused was not proved.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed for first and third accused. Bail granted to second, fourth, and sixth accused subject to conditions including surrender, bond, and sureties.

Baburaj Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7213 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 674/2015 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. BABURAJ, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, KANDATH HOUSE, BHEEMANAD P O,

¶10

MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

2. NASSAR, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.KUNHIVEERAN, POOCHAPPARA HOUSE, BHEEMANAD P O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

3. UDHAYAN, AGED 43 YEARS,

¶14

S/O.LATE RAMAN, PURAMPOKKIL HOUSE, BHEEMANAD P O,

¶15

MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

4. RAFEEK, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶17

S/O.SAIDALAVI, ACHIPARA HOUSE, BHEEMANAD P O,

¶18

MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

5. SUKUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,

¶20

S/O.RAMAN (LATE), PURAMPOIIL HOUSE, BHEEMANAD P O,

¶21

MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶23

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶24

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2015, ALONG WITH BA. 7355/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶29

B.A. Nos.7213 & 7355 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2015

¶31

COMMON ORDER

¶32

Petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

¶33

Procedure.

¶34

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.674 of 2015 of Nattukal Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 I.P.C.

¶35

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 07-11-2015 at

¶36

about 11.45 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons and attacked the defacto complainant in connection with political rivalry during the Panchayath election. First accused used an iron rod and attacked the defacto complainant causing fracture of ribs and ulna fracture. Third accused hit the defacto complainant with a

¶37

granite stone on the left side of his ribs causing injury. Other

¶38

B.A. Nos.7213 & 7355 of 2015 2

¶39

accused persons attacked the defacto complainant with hands.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶41

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in connection with the same incident, a counter case is registered as Crime No.675/2015. According to him, this is a false case and the defacto complainant and his party are the real aggressors. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. From the materials in the case diary, it is seen that the first accused used an iron rod and the third accused used a piece of stone to cause injury and corresponding entries could be seen from the wound certificate. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant prearrest bail to the first and third accused. Hence, their bail applications will stand dismissed. In so far as petitioners 2, 4 and 6 are concerned, they allegedly attacked the defacto complainant with hands. It is not clear whether the 5^th petitioner

¶43

B.A. Nos.7213 & 7355 of 2015 3

¶44

is an accused in the crime.

¶45

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the name

¶46

of the fifth accused is Sukumaran. Fifth petitioner is also having the same name. However, the house name and father's name of

¶47

the fifth petitioner do not match with that of the fifth accused. Therefore, in respect of fifth petitioner, no order is passed in this case as he is not proved to be an accused in the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail can be granted to the petitioners 2, 4 and 6 with following directions :

¶48

Petitioners 2, 4 and 6 shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks from today and submit themselves for interrogation. In that event, the petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶49

B.A. Nos.7213 & 7355 of 2015 4

¶50

The sureties shall produce documents to establish their identity and solvency.

¶51

Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶52

Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶53

If any of the above conditions is violated by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction is free to cancel the bail.

¶54

amk

¶55

Sd/A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶56

//True copy//

¶57

P.A to Judge

Baburaj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburaj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shameera Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Gokul Vs the State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

Suneesh Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan @ Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Haridas Vs Sub Inspector of Police